AMD-the poor man's powerhouse...

T

TheRapture

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,885
My X4 965BE has found a new OC, 4000mhz (250x16) needing to really work it hard a bit, but so far it is holding up great after 4+ hours of F@H (4 instances).

Getting this with an actual 1.424v of input power, HT Link at 2500 and bus at 250. Gaming tests to come this evening. AMD says TCase Max is 62c, which seems to be ~5-6 degrees cooler than die temp. Coretemp is giving me readings of 61c-62c so TCase should be ~57c. The old Big Typhoon is really holding up well for a 5yr old cooler!

http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43375.pdf cpu temp specs

I'll have to say, this little setup rocks just fine for 1080p gaming on my 37".
 
Depends on what you are looking for. If you are going to oc then yeah amd is a better than intel. but similarly the i3 2100 can be better if you are not ocing. It's roughly the same as 955 in performance and price when on sale. Draws a ton less power, less heat and has better upgrade path. Amd really needs bulldozer to be good other wise they don't have much to compete with besides having better integrated graphics.

Good job on the oc!
 
Why can't rich people buy AMD or poor people buy Intel?

Believe it it not, depending on how you build it, the can be close in price.
 
can i ask why you havent mentioned your cpu nb speed, and why youre overclocking the reference clock (with a BE) and also the HT?

4ghz is a good oc though - and ive seen people set higher voltage to achieve that same speed. your chip sounds like it has headroom with better cooling.
 
Poisoner said:
Why can't rich people buy AMD or poor people buy Intel?

Believe it it not, depending on how you build it, the can be close in price.
Click to expand...

It was more a joke...nothing serious intended. I just like cheap and fast cpu's that can overclock nicely.
 
__hollywood|meow said:
can i ask why you havent mentioned your cpu nb speed, and why youre overclocking the reference clock (with a BE) and also the HT?

4ghz is a good oc though - and ive seen people set higher voltage to achieve that same speed. your chip sounds like it has headroom with better cooling.
Click to expand...


More bus speed to feed the cpu/overall system bandwidth. NB is at 2500, cpu is 250fsb x 16. Screenshot below, although I do not use the AMD Overdrive for overclocking, I do it in the BIOS. I just included the shot to show the system speeds.

For some reason this chip does not care for multipliers higher than 19 as it gets unstable, so I dropped it and went to see how high the bus could go. Waiting on some new ram next week, then I might see if it can handle a mild overclock (Crucial Ballistics).

I am kinda lazy about overclocking, I just grab a solid OC and leave it, I don't care at all to spend the additional time to gain another 50-75 mhz.

2zgb1qe.jpg
 
Hell yeah 4GHz on tha cheap....but really it's a the smart mans CPU ;)

Intel is the e-peen enhanced CPU, it can't do anything extra worthwhile.

Yet with the money saved on AMD you can spend an extra 2 or 3 on a 120Hz monitor/projector, graphics card or SSD.

Like I said SMART CPU choice. :)
 
teletran8 said:
Hell yeah 4GHz on tha cheap....but really it's a the smart mans CPU ;)

Intel is the e-peen enhanced CPU, it can't do anything extra worthwhile.

Yet with the money saved on AMD you can spend an extra 2 or 3 on a 120Hz monitor/projector, graphics card or SSD.

Like I said SMART CPU choice. :)
Click to expand...

Cause it's smart to spend the same amount on a cpu that is hotter, draws more power, and slower in single threaded programs than intel's when all you need it for is web/videos? :rolleyes: (Not needing to be oc'ed either)

Both cpu's have their place, but your comment is very un-smart. What do you save by going amd? The prices of their processors and mobo's are roughly the same as intel, you may get some more features on the mobo and oc'ing but that's about it. Not going to save much, there are trade off's an i3 is going to smoke any phenom in single threaded apps, the phenom will beat the i3 in multi threaded apps. Common sense. You certainly aren't going be buying graphics cards and ssds for the very few dollars you save.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the board...this was only 75 + 119 for the cpu....another 28 bucks for some DDR3...pretty damn cheap. The biggest cost was the HD6950 2gb. At the high resolutions I play at, the vid card is more important anyways.


I would have picked the quad core AMD over the i3 anyways, I certainly use the pc for more than gaming so the creamy goodness of 4 fast cores is what I was after to begin with.
 
teletran8 said:
Hell yeah 4GHz on tha cheap....but really it's a the smart mans CPU ;)

Intel is the e-peen enhanced CPU, it can't do anything extra worthwhile.

Yet with the money saved on AMD you can spend an extra 2 or 3 on a 120Hz monitor/projector, graphics card or SSD.

Like I said SMART CPU choice. :)
Click to expand...
Intel CPUs are significantly faster in many applications and scenarios.
 
TheRapture said:
More bus speed to feed the cpu/overall system bandwidth. NB is at 2500, cpu is 250fsb x 16.
Click to expand...

hey man. thanks for the info. wat you are referring to as the "bus speed" is just a 200mhz reference clock used to generate the overall cpu frequency. since your ram is limiting you, and you have a multiplier bug (ive read about that, must be annoying), its convenient to tweak the reference clock...but it doesnt effect bandwidth or anything. the "fsb" = cpu nb clock, so im glad to see yours is at 2500mhz.

so, i mentioned that HT thing bc overclocking the HT has been shown in benches to do nothin for performance beyond ~2200mhz and it has a large effect on system stability. also your reference clock strongly affects mobo stability. i would suggest pulling them back and seeing if you can get your cpu frequency even higher.
TheRapture said:
I don't care at all to spend the additional time to gain another 50-75 mhz
Click to expand...

my headroom comment wasnt meant to imply you could get 50mhz more with like six hours of tweaking. i meant that with better cooling you could probably have 4.1 or 4.2 stable. you probably dont want to buy another heatsink though. its too bad youre not on water!! hehe congrats on 4ghz :D
munkle said:
What do you save by going amd? i3 blah
Click to expand...

nobody wants an i3 when they could have a quad, and spending 200 bucks on a 2500k instead of 119 on a 965 is a big difference. amd is definitely cost effective. now, im not going to say they have the performance edge...
 
Last edited:
TheRapture said:
I would have picked the quad core AMD over the i3 anyways, I certainly use the pc for more than gaming so the creamy goodness of 4 fast cores is what I was after to begin with.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised the i3 is usually better than amd's quads in games and more unless you get to heavy multithreaded apps such as encoding.

__hollywood|meow said:
nobody wants an i3 when they could have a quad, and spending 200 bucks on a 2500k instead of 119 on a 965 is a big difference. amd is definitely cost effective. now, im not going to say they have the performance edge...
Click to expand...

How are they cost effective if they have worse performance? That makes no sense, if they are the same price and i3 is better, then that isn't cost effective. And I would rather have a i3 over a quad in my htpc any day. I'd take an i3 over a quad on a normal use pc as well where there isn't an advantage to 4 cores since you are encoding, the quads shine when you start to encode or have heavily multithreaded programs.

Here are some gaming benchmarks youll see the i3 comes out ahead of a x4 965 (or x4 955) in all of them. In the bit-tech review they have a x4 980 at 4.3ghz and it's barely matching the i3 at gaming. The x4 955 just gets worked over by the i3 at gaming in the xbit review. It comes out equal or better than x4 970 in the anadtech review. You can go through the rest of the reviews if you like. The i3 pretty much always beats the amd quads until you get to encoding.

Why buy a quad if a dual core will get you better results with less power and heat. Quad doesn't always mean better. Encoding yes the quad will have an advantage but gaming, web, video, the stuff most people do the i3 is going to win.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, what's that smell??? Intel fanboy-ism?? This is the same argument as the Ford vs Chevy argument that's been around since before most of you all were born. Drop it already, cause quite frankly WHO THE FUCK CARES!
 
Smoove910 said:
Hmmm, what's that smell??? Intel fanboy-ism?? This is the same argument as the Ford vs Chevy argument that's been around since before most of you all were born. Drop it already, cause quite frankly WHO THE FUCK CARES!
Click to expand...

Hardly intel fanboy. I had an x4 955, and 6850 which I sold. Read my posts I said both have their places, the only fan boys in here are amd fan boys that simply cant handle that. If you look I never said intel was always better, but the amd fanboys have pretty much stated that amd is always better.


Example: who is going to buy an i3 when they can have a quad... they believe a quad is always better and cost effective, not true as shown by the reviews.

teltrans post just reaks of amd is better.

Sorry but this is a discussion forum if you can't handle facts then don't read them. If people want to keep their stupidity after seeing facts fine, doesn't bother me.

I'll state it again both companies have there places but that doesn't mean one is always better than the other, that's hardly fanboy.
 
AMD puts makes an attractive argument for a sub $100 cpu. Nice overclock!


Smoove910 said:
Hmmm, what's that smell??? Intel fanboy-ism?? This is the same argument as the Ford vs Chevy argument that's been around since before most of you all were born. Drop it already, cause quite frankly WHO THE FUCK CARES!
Click to expand...

I think this guy cares ^
 
munkle said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
Click to expand...

Ha good laugh, BTW you ever read what they say in those graphics benchmarking tests? :eek:

FROM bit-tech site verbatim.

(Crysis) "We also set the resolution to 1,680 x 1,050 with no AA and no AF to provide a reasonably real-world test without the risk that the graphics card will be a limiting factor to CPU performance.


You hear that Shakespeare? Those sites you like reading run their games to the point where the GRAPHICS card becomes useless!

Do you run games with the intent of having your new graphics card become crippled? Well these sites DO!!

Sounds reasonable enough to everyone correct?

Lower your graphics card settings across the board so performance becomes under performed on your GPU, and your CPU will now become over stressed and unrealistically more bottlenecked with this approach to benching?

HAHA munkle! You seriously fall for these gimped benchmarks?

Wait WAIT Anandtech runs Fallout 3 on Medium settings :D WITH NO AA and AF. Where's all my [H] members who run these settings??

I'm sorry for your opinion, but I have a paltry 260GTX and even I run all games on the HIGHEST settings except maybe Metro and Crysis but I always run 4x AA. So that test is very unrealistic for me, and I'm sure everyone else on [H] who knows how to apply AA in a computer game applies it.... that is a seriously off benchmark

I'm really sorry for your opinions, but I refuse to buy a Sandy Bridge quad CPU for 150-300 dollars above an AMD just to lower my Oblivion settings to all medium and shut down all AF and AA just so I can get 5 more FPS out of my bran d new 2500/2600k CPU. Are you shitting me? Nope...Intels MOBOS also cost more than the AMD counterparts. Shittin me now? Nope. Seriously that's the biggest bunch of joke nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

My CPU costs 79.99 on Newegg a 2500k is 219.99.

79,99x3 = 239.99 so a 2500k is almost 3 TIMES the cost of a Rana 455. For 5 FPS? ha

So I should get that INTEL CPU just so I can lower all my games graphics to medium with NO AA OR AF just to brag about 5 more FPS on Hard OCP! HAHA THAT SHIT IS TO FUNNY BROSKI KEEP IT COMING HAHA. :) THX FOR THE LAUGHS!!

An extra few hundred saved by sidestepping an Intel 2500k/2600k CPU buy running an X3/X4/X6 AMD CPU

Then spend the 150-300 dollars of money I saved by sticking with AMD, towards a new graphics card 2 tiers above the one I would have been able to afford before. Which can do more than that Intel CPU will EVER do GRAPHICALLY!

Conversly a 120 HZ monitor shows 2x the frames of a 60hz.

An SSD can cut loading times in half or MORE!

BUT an Intel CPU can get me 5 more fps with everything on Medium with no AA no AF!!!!! Yeahhhhh realllll sweet.... :D (more like What a joke, and waste of funds if you ask me)

Hope you like them opinions. ;)

Because they're basically facts. ;)
 
Last edited:
munkle said:
Hardly intel fanboy. I had an x4 955, and 6850 which I sold. Read my posts I said both have their places, the only fan boys in here are amd fan boys that simply cant handle that. If you look I never said intel was always better, but the amd fanboys have pretty much stated that amd is always better.


Example: who is going to buy an i3 when they can have a quad... they believe a quad is always better and cost effective, not true as shown by the reviews.

teltrans post just reaks of amd is better.

Sorry but this is a discussion forum if you can't handle facts then don't read them. If people want to keep their stupidity after seeing facts fine, doesn't bother me.

I'll state it again both companies have there places but that doesn't mean one is always better than the other, that's hardly fanboy.
Click to expand...

This is the AMD subforum what do you expect?
 
@teltran
So you want graphics to be limiting your cpu test? :rolleyes: Its cpu benchmarks, why benchmark the cpu if you are gpu limited... Anybody can turn the graphics way up to kill performance on any game.

Did you bother reading the rest of the reviews? I guess not because I stated in my post if you go back and read that only on the encoding does the amd quad come out top of the i3. I guess you missed that whole part and want to go off on gaming benchmarks. I just linked to that page in the review to show you that it can make a difference in gaming since that was brought up earlier but as I said in my post read the whole review to see that the quads only come out on top for encoding/heavy multi-threading. But I guess that much reading is too much for you.

Also I wasn't saying a 2500k any where so dont know why you go off on that so your cost savings are a few dollars that you are talking about. H61 mobos are $50 that is the same as any cheap am3 mobo, like I said earlier you might get some extra features on the am3 mobo. Those reviews for the most part are i3 reviews with amd quads. Which shows for the same price the i3 is very competitive with amd quads.

This is the AMD subforum what do you expect?
Click to expand...
I guess not much anymore.
 
Last edited:
munkle said:
@teltran
So you want graphics to be limiting your cpu test? :rolleyes: Its cpu benchmarks, why benchmark the cpu if you are gpu limited...

Did you bother reading the rest of the reviews? I guess not because I stated in my post if you go back and read that only on the encoding does the amd quad come out top of the i3. I guess you missed that whole part and want to go off on gaming benchmarks. I just linked to that page in the review to show you that it can make a difference in gaming since that was brought up earlier but as I said in my post read the whole review to see that the quads only come out on top for encoding/heavy multi-threading. But I guess that much reading is too much for you.

Also I wasn't saying a 2500k any where so dont know why you go off on that so you cost savings are a few dollars that you are talking about. H61 mobos are $50 that is the same as any am3 mobo, like I said earlier you might get some extra features on the am3 mobo. Those for the most part are i3 reviews with amd quads.


I guess not much anymore.
Click to expand...

Really you want me to now put you in your place? Ok let's go.

XBIT SITE verbatim THESE ARE YOU LINKS BTFW. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0

X4 955 vs 2100

F1 2010 almost got 6 more FPS!! Holt crap I NEED A SB CPU OBVIOUSLY!!:p j/k it's a waste of financial resources...moving forward.

Civ 5 = 6.5 more FPS

Metro 2033 = 2.8 more FPS

Mafia 2 - AMD outperforms the i3 2100 (Did you catch that one? A non Overclocked AMD CPU just bested the SB i3) Non OC'd HAHA anyhow moving on....Your links BTW bro.

Farcry 2 and Starcraft 2 wow 10 whole FPS...wait the AMD they bench isn't even Overclocked...lul whut?

Anyhow yeah if you don't know jack squat about OCing and run ALLLLL YOUR GAMES AT MEDIUM SETTINGS WITH NO AA AND NO AF then I can see the Intel 2100 being JUST OK.

That must describe your graphics setup to a T, but I'm made different ;) In this case different means better graphics quality.

And like I also pointed out if you go with a 2500k over a 965/955/X3 you will spend easily 100 more dollars. 100 dollars extra on a GPU will obviously get you more than 2.8+ FPS in Metro 2033, now won't it munkle?

Answer the Question will spending 100.00 more on a GPU get more than 2.8 fps in Metro 2033 or not munkle. Don't dance around the question answer it. I bet you won't even answer it. It would be like comparing a 460 GTX to a 560TI. You think the 560TI will do more than 2.8 fps? haha no shit it will bro, but who cares right?!?
 
So you go more off on gaming benchmarks good for you! And you even post that they are roughly equivalent with a slight advantage to the i3. Yet you ignore the rest of the review like I said in my previous post. I said READ THE REST OF THE REVIEW as well.

Dude we arent even talking about a 2500k why bring it up.... I never said the money you saved by getting amd quad over an intel quad woudn't get you a better gpu, I never said that so why even bring it up. This is over an i3 which costs roughly the same and will give you roughly the same performance in some areas, same performance in other areas and worse performance in others.

Is that so hard to understand? Do I need to simplify it more for you. The 2500k isn't the debate at all. We are going on same price, get that in your head. Right now on newegg the x4 955 and i3 are pretty much the same price. Compare those two the i3 is better in some stuff the x4 is better in some stuff. DO YOU GET IT? ALMOST THE SAME PRICE We are not talking about a 2500k. Like I said before the x4 is overclockable, the i3 uses less power, creates less heat. Each has their own place.

You really put me in my place by ignoring anything I have said except gaming.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
teletran8 said:
Hell yeah 4GHz on tha cheap....but really it's a the smart mans CPU ;)
Click to expand...


Yup

Smart man also owns a 1993 Honda or similar car. Smart man doesn't own a house but instead rents a room in a house. He won't eat in a restaurant because he can cook beans at home for a lot less. Smart man also makes a lot of money which he will have placed in his coffin with him when he dies so he can show all the other dead people how smart he was.


oh yeah, smart man wouldn't have a 2nd or 3rd monitor nor a SSD because those aren't smart buys.
 
If the performance are so similiar between the two CPUs (i3-2100 and X4 955) with identical pricing, why not use the one that significantly uses less juice? http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-2120-2100/power-2.png
The X4 955 uses a whopping 80% more watts over the i3-2100. I'm quite certain most people hold power and heat fairly important in this price bracket, especially when building a HTPC or just a computer to surf the web.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
Yup

Smart man also owns a 1993 Honda or similar car. Smart man doesn't own a house but instead rents a room in a house. He won't eat in a restaurant because he can cook beans at home for a lot less. Smart man also makes a lot of money which he will have placed in his coffin with him when he dies so he can show all the other dead people how smart he was.


oh yeah, smart man wouldn't have a 2nd or 3rd monitor nor a SSD because those aren't smart buys.
Click to expand...

Yup I own a Corvette and an AMD (they're both fast). Beans rock, and I'm not dead just yet plus I will make a will if I have kid(s) in my future. :D I also have a 4 bangin Nissan when I want to be friendly to mother earth :p

Like I was sayin I'd rather have a 560TI (avg price 250$) than a 460GTX (avg $150) or a 570 GTX (350.00) over the 560Ti (250.00). Than an Intel CPU over a AMD.Intel 2500k = 219.99 VS. AMD X3 = 79.99 savings of 140.00 dollars.

As far as i3 2100 vs X4 with no price difference. I'd go with AMD because you can OC them to 4GHz or better, and the i3 2100 is really a dual core chip, X3 are real triple cores, X4's are really 4 cores also.

Apparently the 2100 is good in single core tests but when I open my browser it;s insanely fast, when I open any single threaded app it is insanely fast (Think nanoseconds of differences which the human body doesn't notice )

This discussion Intel lovers started really bores me now lol. But we can keep the train rollin if you like! Anything to help you feel better about your expensive purchases..I'll be your therapist because heck you need one :p
 
AeonF1 said:
If the performance are so similiar between the two CPUs (i3-2100 and X4 955) with identical pricing, why not use the one that significantly uses less juice? http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-2120-2100/power-2.png
The X4 955 uses a whopping 80% more watts over the i3-2100. I'm quite certain most people hold power and heat fairly important in this price bracket, especially when building a HTPC or just a computer to surf the web.
Click to expand...

That's a GREAT point, and maybe we should all commute in HORSE AND BUGGIES! Think of the energy consumption advantages!! :D

Actually the only time i get 100 pct CPU usage is in Prime95 and Handbrake.

Any charts on average idle usage and half loads?Then we can talk.

But When I browse my CPU idles and when I game I use around 50 percent. That's what chart I would like to see. Your charts, soooo unrealistic!
 
Last edited:
I'll do the work for you guys. ;)

pow3-avg.gif

link : http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1202-page6.html

60 vs 90 watts basically, or 55 vs 85....you save 30 watts...A modern laptop will use 25 watts on average.

Let's seee what else...Oh yeah I pay around 9 cents a killowatt so 30 watts times 24 hours x 7 days a week x 4 weeks in a month = 20160 watts if I run it non stop medium load all month 9 cents times 20 = 1.80 extra a month. 1.80 times 12 months is 21.6 dollars extra a year. To bad my computer is usually off or idling at 2 pct cpu usage it probly cost me 5 dollars extra a year. That's like a gallon of gas bro... nah idc. You almost had me lol. STILL BUYING AMD!!

5 bucks of power savings a year and 5 FPS extra in medium settings games with NO AA OR AF doesn't temp me at all to joining the dark side of the force ;)
 
teletran8 said:
As far as i3 2100 vs X4 with no price difference. I'd go with AMD because you can OC them to 4GHz or better, and the i3 2100 is really a dual core chip, X3 are real triple cores, X4's are really 4 cores a
Click to expand...

Pity it barely starts catching up to i3 2100 when overclocked.
 
munkle said:
@teltran
So you want graphics to be limiting your cpu test? :rolleyes: Its cpu benchmarks, why benchmark the cpu if you are gpu limited... Anybody can turn the graphics way up to kill performance on any game.
Click to expand...


No flaming here...


What I am getting at, is that at high resolutions....high image quality settings such as 4xAA and lots on anisotropic filtering, the difference between AMD and Intel is less important. I play on a 37" 1920x1080.

I don't build rigs to benchmark, I use them for games and music/video encoding fun. AMD offered me the best $ value and matches nicely with my hd6950.
 
who is going to buy an i3 when they can have a quad
Click to expand...

Imagine a world where you use your cpu to game for 2 years. After that, you give it to a family member to use as a web browser. At this point, AMD=Intel.

Imagine 2 months after this world. Your computer-illiterate family member has now loaded the pc up with 35 widgets, 20 startup programs, and 3 anti-virus programs. At this point, 4 cores>2, no matter the IPC.

That would be my reasoning behind the argument here. I run a 2600k right now, but if I were in the market for a $100 cpu, I am thinking I would go for the 955BE over the i3, despite the higher performance of the 2100. As other have mentioned, most games are GPU limited, so in games it really wont matter.

My 2c
 
Michaelius said:
Pity it barely starts catching up to i3 2100 when overclocked.
Click to expand...

I have read this a couple times, does anyone have benchmarks of the i3 2100 vs a amd quad at 4? I have looked but I think anandtech's comparison for the x4 980 is as high as I have found.
 
munkle said:
Depends on what you are looking for. If you are going to oc then yeah amd is a better than intel. but similarly the i3 2100 can be better if you are not ocing. It's roughly the same as 955 in performance and price when on sale. Draws a ton less power, less heat and has better upgrade path. Amd really needs bulldozer to be good other wise they don't have much to compete with besides having better integrated graphics.

Good job on the oc!
Click to expand...

If you are going to overclock, Intel will get you higher clocks for less effort. So tell me how AMD is better for overclocking again? I know this is the AMD section of the forum but your post is misinformation at it's finest.

Now if you said, AMD is harder to tune than Intel which makes it more fun I'd call you a masochist but also agree with you. There is greater effort and tuning required to overclock and AMD processor based system and the rewards are less. If this appeals to you then that's great. Personally I like adjusting three settings and hitting 4.8GHz+ on a Core i7 2500K or Core i7 2600K and having nearly unmatched performance.
 
Dan_D said:
If you are going to overclock, Intel will get you higher clocks for less effort. So tell me how AMD is better for overclocking again? I know this is the AMD section of the forum but your post is misinformation at it's finest.

Now if you said, AMD is harder to tune than Intel which makes it more fun I'd call you a masochist but also agree with you. There is greater effort and tuning required to overclock and AMD processor based system and the rewards are less. If this appeals to you then that's great. Personally I like adjusting three settings and hitting 4.8GHz+ on a Core i7 2500K or Core i7 2600K and having nearly unmatched performance.
Click to expand...

wtf is wrong with nobody seeing that I am not talking about a 2500k! I am talking about an i3 2100, you can't oc an i3 2100...... or do you have magical i3's that can oc?
 
munkle said:
wtf is wrong with nobody seeing that I am not talking about a 2500k! I am talking about an i3 2100, you can't oc an i3 2100......
Click to expand...

Sure you can. You just can't get much out of it. You can still adjust the BCLK a few MHz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top